tv Transbay Joint Powers Authority 3917 SFGTV March 17, 2017 5:30am-7:41am PDT
>> so it wouldn't be safe to use your fireplace to cook? >> not at first. you should check it by a professional first. >> outside should be a safe place to cook as long as you stay away from buildings and doors and windows. >> yes. that will be fine. >> here we have some alternative cooking areas. >> you can barbecue and if you have a regular propane bark could barbecue. >> thank you for joining us. and thanks for this terrific space that you have in this exhibition space and thanks for helping san francisco stay safe. i was chair.
so i would not have to do it again. >> good morning, today march 9th, 2017 i will call the regular meeting of the transbay joint powers. >> i will note for the record that director will not be present, harper, here. >> kim. >> present. >> sartipi. >> present, and chair. >> present. >> and you do have a quorum. >> okay. >> next its em. >> three is communications i am not aware of one. >> i do have one, excuse me if it is disjointed, i wrote it up over breakfast. the board will be going into closed session today, to discuss the prices and terms of what is incorrectly described as a master lease of the terminal. actually we will be going into a
line by line of a 25 page powerpoint presentation, most of which is historical recap. and none of which in my opinion consists of prices or terms of payment. but estimates of cost and revenues. that is already been discussed with the contractor. for many months staff rational for closed session is that we are talking to two parties and we are really protecting their confidenceal information. from each other, but from the first of this year, that rational has not been the case. rule purposes of this continue see guess trags is to leave as little time as possible for actual board member input of the important aspects of this long term contract to keep from the public, the sorry economics we are in and to allow, and to allow the public to first see
the contract only after it has already been in effect signed, sealed and delivered. i am sorry for this, because that is not just a loss to the public, but it is the loss of this board. because it is being denied the negotiating power that comes with public discussion. thank you. >> okay. thank you director harper. >> item four is board of director's new and old business. >> seeing none, item five is executive director's report. >> good morning, directors. as you recall, from previous updates, the new members of the san francisco county transportation commission asked for permission on the prop k allegation request was considered at the january fourth meeting, since then we have worked with the staff to provide the briefings for each of the
four new commissioners it was continued to the february, 28leth meeting given the recent delay of the federal funds for the cal train, the chair has indicated that he would like the prop k, allocation to be considered on the march first, meeting along with the up date on cal train electric identification. in addition, as a result of the input that we received from the staff we have revised our prop k allocation to exclude the engineering work for a portion of the work on faldon street, the revised request is a two part request. part one 30 percent engineering for the portion of the alignment that is xhon to all alternatives under consideration by the study which includes, work along the second street and after the train box extension of the train box, and the bart connector. part two is the allocation request, studying in detail the
cover section of the work on town send street, with the goal of the links of that section will minimize the input due in construction. we are eager to connect for the dtx and we will continue to work with the staff to resolve this delay as quickly as possible. we continue to work with the sf planning department and the director and his team to best rbi study to the successful completing, and this is our understanding that the current phases will be done in the next four to six months, at which time the costs and schedules for the various alternatives under consideration will be known and integrated schedule, that includes the dpx will be developed. moving forward, we are intend to be more involved in the developments and reb study and then deliver the health and expertise that we have available for the team so that the study can be completed successfully as soon as possible.
completing of the study is the significant step of advancing the high speed rail to a transit center. as a result of input from the public and board members, today we have an up date on the status of the supply mental document for phase two that includes an over all view of the comments and responses we have provided. region 9 has completed the review of the document and we continue to work with the sf planning to explain how we address the concerns, we hope to bring the supply mental documents for the board's consideration shortly. >> international and electrical worker ibew came after the construction site on february 21, 22, for the work on the project. and scott from our staff was interviewed to discuss the project's progress, in many ways, the ide and he has contributed to phase one, and especially during the past year as mechanical and electrical and plumbing work has been in full
swing, over the past year, we have actually placed 50 miles of electrical conduit in the center, it will be shown to the members and used in their public out reach effort. on february, 28th, the senior project construction manager, on and an event, sponsored by the golden gate association. and the lgbt chamber of commerce, milestone in regard of inclusion of lgbt business on the public works project. they have recognized sandra, the ceo and part owner of electric to have gotten the largest construction to an lgbt owned business anywhere in the united states when they were selected to provide the electrical materials and the supplies for the transit center project, and the subcontractor. it was a golden gate, business association that other public agencies outside of the area
will follow in our footsteps, and take note and realize that inclusion of lgbt contractors is good business. last but not least, our effort for recruitment for the internment ship for the summer has been began. it has actually been a year believe it or not. >> each year they hire, local rising high school students who are available to work for 6-week period to participate in the summer internship program. internships will run from june, 19, to july, 28th, these are internships that provide valuable work experience for students beginning in to form their future career's interest. >> we encourage the students, interested in exploring careers in engineering, finance, public service, and computer out reach. prior work and experience is not required, about you engineering is welcomed. just kidding. >> resumes and cover letters should be submitted by april, 14th, and details can be found
on the website, currently and we hope to bring the internship like we do every year to the board. we that, that concludes my report and there was a quarterly report that was submit inned your packet. if you have any questions, we can answer that. >> not a question just a comment. to the earlier part of your presentation. i think that it's good to hear of the interest to be more actively engaged in the rib study that the city is doing, but i will repeat what i said last year. i think that at some point, sooner rather than later we need to bring the efforts together because we have two different entities planning the same project, which at some point will not make sense, so it sounds like we are going to be hitting a mild stone like you said in 4 to 6 months in the current phase of the reb work is done and i would encourage and work with the planning department and the city to actually bring these efforts together and i think that it
makes sense to bring them in to tgpa so that we have a single process going forward. >> any others? >> okay. okay, next item. >> item 6, construction up date. >> good morning, directors, we will give this month's construction up date myself and ron, we will go through the regular or a list of agendas and i want to start off that we are at our peak construction and we are clipping along at a million a day, and we will be at that pace for quite a few months now as we are sprinting to december and we are on schedule at this point and i will continue to progress in the up date you as we go. but it is a very busy and that is why at this shows a lot of work on many levels. we do have a closer to the 800 workers now, on site. and working at all levels and one of the items ta note on this is the bus jet fountain now.
it has been installed quite a bit in the last couple of months and there is good pictures to that effect. lower level is starting to wind down because a lot of the walls have been just about are done and then the electrical and the mechanical is filling them in. on the western zone, the pictures now of progress, more relate to elevators escalators and drywall and those kind of components are going in, in a feverish pace throughout the western zone, along with the switch gear and various elements related to building out the rooms. central zone, there is, you can see in the upper right-hand picture and you can see that some of this pretest elements of the bus jet fountain, and with the palm trees it was actually very neat this morning, when i was coming into work, and i actually enjoy the fact that as you walk down first street and every driver on first street will see the palm trees up on the park. so it was a beautiful at the
sunrise to see this, palm tree up there now, and so everyone will know what is going on up top. but also, the progress is going within as well, at the lower right, it shows a lot of framing that is going on, that is one of the skylights on, and at the bus deck level, getting framed out. and also, the temporary bridge removal was reopened and cat tracked last night, to insure that the striping was taken care of and it will be very shortly. and another picture of the grand hall and you will see a lot of framing going on and the most important element that is the north and the south side the of grand hall is that we have ceiling panels being installed and so it is really starting to take shape in the grand hall. and in the eastern zone, we have item such as the cafe, the drum cafe because it is the round element to it, and the walls report for that and in the bottom left, a lot of awning is being installed now in the eastern zone as well.
so the things are progressing well throughout. and at the bus ramp project, i do note here that starting a very shortly, next month, we will be including the bus storage facility construction up date. but we are just, we have the bus ramp here, a lot of the work at the far south end of the crash bayriers and grading and the false creek removals are all happening. frame five that is the drop in span, that was the metal element that is the connectivity between the cable state bridge and the transit center and, it did take longer than they anticipated. and they do have it done right. it did have to be installed and took a few weeks longer, that is reflective in the schedule that ron is going to present here shortly. it does not impact anything with the transit center at all. and it has float, months and months of floats, so there is no connection between the tube, well there is just a note in that contract itself. and then the bottom right shows one of the guard shacks that is going to be up there now, as a
lot of the security elements are put in place since we have moved passed the concrete and the steel element of the bus ramp bridge. one item note too, the temporary bridge removal at beel street was progressing. beel street was closed down on saturday morning and as soon as it was closed the overhead system, the lines were taken down. by monday, gordon ball had moved in and just about have done an amazing job the last three days, they are ahead of schedule, slightly, and we are keeping informed with everybody, but it is going well on beel street as the traffic is managed around and as with he go and as we are on track for our april first reopening to beel street. we did have one recordable incident since the last time that i was here, and it was not in february, about you it was on march first, i brought that in there, usually i only keep the february month, but i did figure that it was close enough prior to preparing this, that there was one of the iron workers was
drilling a hole through one of those metal sheet metals and his pinky got caught, in there. and unfortunately they had to do the work on his pinky and he lost a fair amount of his pinky in the process, about you in true, iron worker, he was back to work the very next day. so, on modified duty at least. and we enkured almost, 100,000 hours of trade and with the total of almost 3.16 million hours, to date. so with that, i will turn that over to ron, to complete the rest of the construction up date. thank you. >> good morning, directors and thank you, dennis and it is always and i enjoyed the photo as a testament of great progress in the last months or year. in terms of budget, we are pretty much staying course with the expectations they are
estimated to cost have completing remains constant at 2.146. billion. well, below our target max of 1.159. we had an uptick of expenditures reflective of the million dollar a day, stat that dennis had mentioned. in pace with the completing objectivity or the contract requirement for december 22nd. commitments that were elevated of 106 million that is reflected with the confusion of the new funding from the city as well as tifia and afforded us the opportunity to notice to proceed to the contractors to give them
a free and clear and wide path to meet their objective of substantial completion. with respect to costs, draw downs, last month, with he drew down about 3.8. almost half of that was really just procurement of the emergency radio systems. so that is all planned activity. other than that, it was some with regard to change orders related to work to accommodate the seismic join for the sales force tower that is a reimbursable as well. and the remainder are fairly incidental change orders. schedule is pretty much constant which is a good thing in terms of the transit center.
in terms of substantial completion and we held duration on final completion as well over the last month. the park given the amount of rain we had i was not surprised to see a couple of days slip on the roof park. again, we are striving to get better and good momentum on that to start reigning that in. and dennis mentioned the frame five difficulties for the bus ramp and that is reflected in the schedule as well in terms of showing a substantial completion of april 28th, which is a little bit late per their contract. however, it really has no impact on the transit center opening as you can see there is a lot of space or float as we call it between substantial for the transit center and the bus ramp. but storage facility we did
receive bids that is up coming agenda item that dennis will go into depth on. where we are eager to engage that effort that represented the largest budget risk in terms of unprocured scope. so the bid came in relatively favorable and i will not steal dennis's thunder, but we are comfortable with advancing that one. risk is constant in concerns of concern of maintaining schedule. again as i mentioned last month, the strategy is don't let the little things grow into big things and we are trying to address issues as they are arising, and really a lot of
small ball things that come up, are hearing about, you know, features of lighting and ceilings, and pile on. and nothing that rises us to the level of board concern. the temporary bridge removal was again, resequencing the strategy, and i mentioned last month that was engaged on saturday. and i believe that it is pacing a little ahead of schedule, which is a good thing. so i think that our general schedule mitigation strategy is bearing good fruit. added the risk of systems installation and commissioning, where we are engaging or initiating that effort. i will describe it as a premitigation strategy. there is nothing over arching as a problem. but with all complex projects,
low voltage and the like, always come in and bite you at the end. so, trying to stay ahead of that curve, and stay engaged or in formed of what chatter is out there as we advance shot drawings, and in particular, with fire alarms and with the fire department. they get rather persnikidy about the performance of the fire alarms and so i am just trying to make sure that everything is engaged and addressed in a timely fashion. some specifics are as i mentioned the roof part pile ones and some inner relationship with the fire alarm as it relates to the mass notification system which will be bringing to you soon. that is probably the largest last procurement we have. we did receive proposals discussions and scope have not gotten to a point that i am
comfortable of recommending advancing, so when we do get there, they will probably be the next last. and the hardware is always an interesting discussion of how they interact with the electrical and low voltage. and lastly, as always, the operational readiness is pretty much static last month in terms of focusing on we need to get a master acid manager on board. this board member but we are not quite there. and also, on board the security staff and facility and park staffing. and that is, advance and there are interviews, and moving forward on that front. in terms of our transition
meetings, and the forecast for full transit operations remain at march per ac transit in muni. and we have developed requested last month, you know, a look at and we have been developing schedules in transition plans. i was not quite comfortable enough to kind of delean ate the outline until we get the input from the facility manager, the security officer, and the acid manager. and so, that should be forth coming. and in the absence of those stake holders we are continuing to have our monthly transition meetings. rec nicing, you know, right now, that muni and ac transit are trending towards march, and also recognizing that the january, and february is our kind of, if
you will, area where we could absorb any slippage or one of our catch and early stand up of? incremental operations. we will be diving deeper in that with the stake holders at the table. for the last of the stake holders on the table, the one adjustment that i would have made on the monthly meetings, to put a little different structure to it as we have pretty much got each monday, we meet on transition, with the stake holders that we have available. and each monday will be a rotation of focus first monday of the month is communications and second is trying to button up the mlu and contracts. the third monday is a focus on technology. and systems and then the fourth monday will bring the primary champions of operational staff and procedural planning. and so i think that we have the
structure in place and we have a good measure of the stake holders at the table, but i am eager to round out that table to allow us to perfect the standing up of the facility. >> and with that, that concludes my portion of the report. >> any questions from the directors. the operator readiness, and right now muni is schedule to ac transit, and because a lot of people a lot of riders transfer between the two systems. that is why, we are out at march as well. muni readiness could be sooner, and so just know that that flexibility is there if there is a need or a desire for full or partial change sooner, we can be flexible on that. >> and yeah, and, they have
expressed that as well. and i appreciate that input and again, once we get fullny engaged and fully rounded it he table. wither going to try to get it going as soon as we can. overlaid with all of the other system readiness stuff and the facility and what have you. >> but, right now, the trajectory, you know, really looks like march for full. but there is a lot of incremental or elements that could start manifesting themselves in the january, february, time frame. i believe. >> and we will try to maximize that. >> could you? >> thank you. >> thank you, and it is a great report from your team and i just want to follow up a little bit about the operational readiness slides that you put together in a given director har per's comments earlier this meeting. there is a cost to the organization, the longer the
master lease e does not come on board or the longer that it takes to start to have buses, revenue service in the facilities. so i think that we are not able to give you a guarantee right now. and or when the revenue service will begin or when the master lease e will be ready. so between you and our executive director, i think that you need to start bracketing what that monthly cost is going to be just in case. because we cannot finish construction and leave the facility no one there. >> right. >> there is a maintenance cost and a security cost, no matter what, as soon as the contractor steps away, and says here are the keys, we have a responsibility to maintain and keep this facility secure, regardless of the master lease, and there is going to be a monthly cost and a revenue for that.
kwha that mielt be so they can start thinking on the other side of the ledger where it will be. if we have to make arrangements for security there is a cost for. >> yes. >> so given where we are in the calendar and where you have been working hard with your team to complete construction we need to be ready for that. >> yeah and mark and i are working close and i understand although, i am not part of all of the elements of that. and i believe that is kind of baked into the development of the operating costs. that has become in the mix or because of the projections. but you are right, there are repercussions of coming later rather than sooner. i mean, you know, even that, you talk about handing over keys, i had a discussion yesterday over what is the key-in schedule for the building? we don't have the person at the table to round that out, and i have done a lot of keying for
buildings and that gets rather detailed and time consuming sometimes. but again, i'm used to hospitals with 3,000 doors. we have 500 here. so, it is not quite as heavy lifting. but, those are the kinds of things that come up and need to be addressed on a day-to-day basis. and we are with or without the player at the table. and i'm fully comfortable with making decisions based on the information that we have and the experience we have in the room. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> any other questions? >> okay. >> so i think similar to both director gee and reiskin that tightness and making sure that we as we finish things and you know, who is coming when, and when the certain activities would happen in any cost or anything. and that should be worked out so that we can feel comfortable that we are moving towards
december, and absolutely. >> and that is at the forefront. >> thank you for the up date. >> thank you. >> okay. on 7, is the citizen's advisory committee up date. and we have bruce with us. >> good morning, chairs nuru and directors. my name is bruce and i am the chair of the tgpa citizen's advisory committee, my comments will be focused in four areas this morning. and it is going to track a bit along with executive director's comments earlier. first as mark indicated going before the commission on march 14th is a proposal for the 5.4 million dollars of prop k funds to appreciate two items. 4.5 million for the 30 percent design, and the portion of the dtx, including second street and
the extension of the train box and the pedestrian walkway from the transbay, transit center to the station, and the 900,000 dollars to study the portion of the current or pennsylvania alignment to determine if either some of the boring or miepd r mining can be used to minimize the cut and cover. and i think that it is critical, you know, minimizing the cut and cover, and the associated disruption along the street at the fourth and king station as well as throughout the neighborhood is critical. based on current activity and we talked about this before, in the neighborhood along with increased volumes associated with the central soma plan, and cut and cover, construction, would bring it, would bring the neighborhood to a stand still. i am in full support of the 5 hpt 4 million ex-pepped tur at this time as these appear to be no regret $extend surs that were
covered under the 4.5 million will be used in any of the three alignments considered as part of the rab study, in the review of the street as necessary as part of the rab study to help to identify the costs. of these alignments using the townsend corridor. >> they were pleased and encouraged to hear at this week's cac meeting that the recommendation could be made on the preferred alignment on the next 4 to 6 months and that is what we are talking about over the past year or so and we were really pleased to hear that. the approval to move forward with the work associated with the 5 hpt 4 million, request for the 30 percent design along with the recommendation on a preferred alignment keeps the mow men tom moving forward on phase two of the project. >> and i do want to, you know, from a realistic, realistic perspective make sure that i share with you and i know we are all concerned with the
uncertainty created by washington, with the delay of the 647 million dollars of federal funding, identified for cal train electric identification, based on this, we all some might say or we might say, what is a sense of urge intelligency, to authorize this funding and should we wait until the current funding is resolved, but i know that i am preaching to the choir here and as a region and as a state, our economic engine and jobs and quality of life are dependent on robust transportation infrastructure, california, population and jobs will continue to grow and we need to find a way to get this built, without it we will experience grid lock. and i have confidence that agencies responsible for bay area transpowrtation funding we will find a way to get it done, in the meantime, getting the planning and the study work completed in a timely manner is critical, so that we can get the extension built and bring the
rail into the ttc minimizing delays. >> second, i would like to move on to phase one of the project. and that is's cac is very pleased with the construction progress made to this point, in the sense of urgency with the project team to transition bus operations as quickly as possible after the december opening. however, as ron just indicated, and we still see that is targeted for march 2018, we are hopeful for an earlier phased in approach to start as early as possible after the first of the year. with that said, kind of shifting gears, we are deeply concerned and director harper thank you, and chair nuru and directors, you know, we are all deeply concerned with the delays of bringing on an asset manager. not only from a delayed
standpoint just standing up services in retail, but also what we have been hearing recently in the media about the shortfall of funding to you know, for operations in maintenance, and so, you know, our, you know, our focus in support is to move this forward as, you know, with the right amount of due diligence as quickly as possible, and make the great decisions, to move this forward. so that as a center opens, we are prepared of how we are going to handle any deficits, stand up any services, and the associated retail with the bus, with the transit center opening. in addition one of the concerns of not having the asset manager on board, is that really the need to work with the department of homelessness and supportive services to have an approach to address the homeless issue at the center with the adjacent
communities and we know that that is a key item to the asset manager in the more time that they have to get ready we understand is a pretty long runway to be ready to address these issues. so we look forward to reviewing and providing feedback on plans, in both of these areas, and we are pleased with the commitment from the lincoln hills, cbd who has been actively engaging with the product team to work on these issues. like to shift again to, i think that you are going to hear, on the agenda is comments on the information on the supply mental eir, and eis, and i have already mentioned comments about some of the concerns along the counsel send corridor. but i would also like to express the concerns from the eir, and regarding the 16th and 7th streets intersections.
although, this they have been addressed with the mitigation strategies, there are significant impacts today and with the continued development in mission bay, and rock and dog patch and with the chase center, developments with in most parts supported by the city and community, the crossing or the depressed roadway, which the latter being part of the high speed rail plan, is truly unacceptable to the community. last, there will be another item regarding the tjpa ca appointments we hope that they will approve the recommendations that are being put forward by the project team. based on the working relationship over the past six years, two of the past members including myself are reappointments. this group of members have been engaged on the discussion of the issues bro ut forward by the project team. and believe that we provided valuable feedback on behalf of the stake holder
groups in presentations that come before the board. two members will not continue on the cac, based on a variety of reasons, vice chair post and member, alice rogers and on behalf of the members of the cac, we wanted to thank them both for the service and for the contributions will be missed. >> that wraps up my up date. >> thank you chl >> okay, great. >> thank you. >> thanks. >> all right, your next sit em is 8, public comment, it is an opportunity for the members of the public to address you for the members that are not on the calendar, rehave row land, followed by jim patrick. >> good morning directors. so if you heard what i just compelled to share with you what i actually see in the cac. the first thing i said is that
what -- the full board in on the fourth or the 23rd. i will personally insure that the supervisors do not allocate a single dime to this further engineering and the cir. i then spent two minutes outlining another alignment. that has got absolutely no impacts anywhere, any no surface impacts any way in soma north of townsend other than second street but that is between alemena and toma nothing else. and it is the full grade separation, cost of tending is a $400 million, and seen there to what you would do in the subway, and that is 1.7 miles. the same idea, no any way, because we know, we know how the evacuation takes place and i think that the mta is going to help to move that conversation.
but, with regards to not having the funding, i think that the message from them is clear. with he got to start being smarter with the way that we spend money on transportation, and that is exactly what we are going to do here. but the thing that i really wanted to address you on is to give you an up date on the platform heights. and i believe that it is in the september or the october, and the time frame, i mentioned that we already had issued an npr and the notice of preparation of anything. which basically defined what they called, the transit which is the high speed transit supposed to look like, which is the locomotive and the side and the passenger compartments in the middle and similar to the french and the architecture. what i want to close off is to read to you is the next track from a letter dated february the 7th from the peer review group which is one of the conditions of what happens when the high speed rail wants to submit the
funding plan to the legislature. and with he have recommended in past letters that you are abducting the trains from the outset, because the platform will be consistent with the lower level used by cal train and the ace if they are joined in the future. >> in our discussions the authority indicated that they will come to the import from the new system. and we recommend that this issue be addressed carefully before the hsr, for the rolling stock free design and it might point you on the director gee, this was two sets of doors and these trains that cost more than anybody could ever think which by the way don't have the capacity that we need that has to be stopped immediately, with the waste of 20 million so far. thank you. >> kim patrick.
>> kim patrick, san francisco, and i ross not a favorable article for the tjpa. we have no one on the staff in terms of public relations who is really rebutting an article like that. the last piece of public information we put out was a pr on the infinity of leaning over and what have you. we need to be managing this process. i think that we need to get out of the engineering phase, we have got great engineers, we need to get into the management phase. we need to have business people saying hey, listen, we need to -- we have got a great product here and these are the features and benefit and we have a schedule and we are meeting the schedule and going this direction and what have you. we are missing that. and i think that we are making a t strategic mistake, because we need customers in the end game. and we see what has happened with the oakland connection down there on bart. we don't need that problem. we want a full vibrant transit
center and we have to work to that. not only do we have to build it, about you we have to work to see this achieved as well. and that takes marketing and takes public relations and it takes a long term effort to make it happen. with he need to be on that ball, thank you. >> okay, and then we have saline jones? good morning, directors. chairman, my name is doren jones i am a former ac transit bus driver of 21 years, and a candidate for the ac transit board of directors, i am here today to express my humble and my great gratitude of being on a transbay task force, and being able to on february, 24th, to go with the rest of the task force members inside the new transbay terminal. you guys are doing a fantastic job.
i was so impressed when seeing everything from the ground floor up to the garden. so with that being said, one of my campaign three key notes was trying to bring an hov lane on the bay bridge to keep the buss on time to the transbay terminal. if you guys are having meetings on that, i would like to be in those meetings. or if no one has thought of it, or started on it, i would like to help. and offer all of my advice. thank you. >> that concludes members of the public that wanted to address you under that item. you can go ahead and move into your consent calendar. >> yes. where all matters are considered to be routine, and acted upon by single vote, there will be no separate discussion, unless a member of the board or public so request, we have not received any indication that any member of the public or board wish to have any items severed.
>> the items. >> moved for approval. >> first and second. >> director gee. >> oi. >> reiskin. >> aye. >> harper >> aye. >> nuru. >> aye. >> the consent calendar is approved. move to your regular calendar. >> yes >> item ten, authorizing the executive director to execute a construction services contract with , as the responsible bidder submitting the lowest responsive bid in the amount of $21,608,720 with a contract time of 281 working days for the bus storage facility. >> directors, shawn will present this item. >> good morning directors. i present i am pleased to present to you the bus storage facility and award recommendation. the facility is located now between second and third street
and it is directly underneath the west approach project, an area that i am familiar with and i spend a lot of time in my career actually in that area. and so it is an interesting homecoming. but that is a facility that reconnects or allows for a connection between the bus ramp and to allow for the ac transit and other public transit buses to sit during the daytime to eliminate any dead heading that we would be required to go back to the east bay. the facility itself is the scope itself is the majority itself is the ramp itself over second street, and there are many retaining walls and the sound walls and it isn't, you know, a neighborhood area. the still man street and the perry both have residents in the area. i'm personally very familiar with many of them. so it is important that we are good neighbors. and those elements have been built into the structure. it accommodates for about 50
buses, spaces in there. and it also has a facility for the ac transit bus drivers, and managers and such in a, in an administrative building, and on various things, but it does allow for to keep the buses off the streets. and that is the important thing to keep them off the second street, harrison street and any of the areas that can go straight from the transit center directly over to the bus storage facility. and the other items too, involved in the booth and just utility work associated with the administrative buildings and the guard shacks and security that goes into the facility. as part of that scope of work as well, there is anticipated hazardous material that we had as alternate in allowance in the bidding process. the bid summary, i want to start off one item that was not noted in your staff reports that is different, the staff report
noted a no protest we received. we did receive one protest in the time period from the second bidder and it was related to a suband it's sve utilization, and sense then, with he have added to the construction and the perform and give a response that response was adequate to us. and that denoted basically that the submay not have been in the performing the particular electrical work but he had a second tier subthat was also an sve, doing the work and so his sve numbers rolled up to exactly what he had proposed and in everything, and it is just, the form itself does not allow for a second tier subto be noted but under the listed subwe felt very comfortable in denying the protest. and that notification has gone out already. but then so the issue for the bid was january, 11th, and we did receive bids march first, so that is the bid protest period ended yesterday, and the budget waz 20 million, 20,000, we
estimated it was an aplus, b, contract and so we allowed for a range between, 280, and 345 days, with a goal of 18 percent. we did prequalify five bidders and we received three bids that were in the range between 21.6 million to 24.2 million dollars. two bidders did not bid, i talked with them personally, and they said that they did their work load and their resource levels would not have, and they would not have been able to meet the needs for this job, quite frankly some of the jobs have been stacked up because of the winter storms. and so that pushed out a lot of their project and so they did not have the resources and so the two of them did not bid and we did have three bids for our aplus, b, contract and i know that we have talked about the contract in the past. the a is basically their bid. base bid, the b is the bidding on the time that we assigned a nominal amount, 2500 dollars just for comparison purposes
only. and i will go through that in the next want. >> the next slide after this. >> and we do have and there is the listing of the five that we did receive for the pre-quals. >> and here is the results they feelsome themselves and the apparent bidder and they have what we have got here, on this the base bid and any of the alternate in the allowance and we accepted all of them. especially since it is related to the hazardous materials and allowances related to traffic control, basically using the police for the traffic in the area. so a lot of construction and had a 21.608, 720 million dollars low bid, compared to the others and it is a fairly tight spread and it was a good bid, 281 working days, as wells and so that gave to the bid purposes comparison only, the bottom number, but for award purposes
it is the total bid amount for 21.6 million dollars. so as was noted it was an element of the protest which was denied, the sbe goal was 18 percent, and in july to construction submitted a robust, 32 percent. and so that was a very impressive listing. that goes through the numbers. the total award amount as i noted was 21 million, 608,000, 720 dollars, the budget was 20 million, 20,000 that was the difference. it leaves, 1.1 million, 588,000. to be funded through the program reserve. and? discussions and looking at the bids, the reason for the overage, the overwhelming over half of that is related to a seismic joint. in the original estimate, there was a certain type of seismic joint through the process and after the design estimates that
had to be an increased. we have, and you know, many of the bridge projects when you have to do an increase, those are not cheap elements. so that was that was the overwhelming majority and the rest of the dollars were spread out over the fact that this job just bid about a year half later than it was pushed for a while so the combination in the escalation in that joint it accounts for the 1.588, 720 dollars that are requested from the program reserve. 6 million reserve, and then the balance after this award and the balance will be 125,000. and i do note that in the previous item, the bus storage facility rent will also be coming from the program reserve at 24,000. 160, during the construction, only. and then at that point, it does
as per will eventually reflect in the sublease. and it will be transferred over to ac transit. so at this point, i request a recommend the authorization of the executive director to execute the construction service to the ghilotti construction. if there are any questions >> i don't know if it is an issue legally you but ac transit had some hazardous waste removed from one of the bus yards, some time some years ago. but we were listed as the generator of the has ard yus waste on the manifest. and apparently in terms of the dtsc and other regulatory
agencies, once you are listed as the generator, you are liable completely for making sure that waste not only for making sure that the waste was disposed of in a proper facility, but that was the proper facility. and we ended up being a long time involved in the cesterson litigation, because we were just simply listed on the manifest. and so since then, ac transit has shaped these contracts so that the person who is doing the hauling off makes sure that it is delivered for the proper facility and list themselves as the generator. i don't know if this is all still relevant, and i say that was years ago, but, you know, i would keep that litigation itself, costs us several hundred 1,000 dollars and i hate to see us volunteer fld in one if we could simply have the contractor listed as the generator. >> well it is very clearly in the lease contract between cal transand the tjpa that it is the
listed generator as part of the agreement, and the manifest will be signed by the guy right behind me ed. and so also, it is part of the contract, that the construction has to handle. >> that is too bad. >> and one thing that i do have to note actually is i did not notice that we have the inkroechment permit that we are in the middle of. i want to show this and the plan specs, and submit. and i say that because the teamworked really hard. to get to this point.
part of the application right now, and it is the partial encroachment and no one sees any issues with that at this point, and so i want to point that out before i forgot. >> any other questions? >> yes. >> you mentioned the b, value, being 2500 on that bid. what is the tro? >> i believe that it is 5,000. we kept it nominal because of the impacts for less than the tro. >> great. just a quick clarification that the 22.0 million dollar estimate was that the original or is that the estimate about a year and a half ago when the project was
supposed to go out to bid? >> yes, and it is also and that is what is in the budget. >> now the 2016, june budget. >> i mean one of no one on this day is, but i deal with a lot of other elected colleagues around the region who believe that time and money are not connected. so 5 percent is what we escalation has been going, and so if you do 5 percent per year and year and a half, that is out where the bid results came in and with the exception of the expansion joint. >> right. >> i have the folks believe that if i wait five years the construction costs will go down and i don't understand it at all. but thank you. >> i want to make sure that i heard that directly. >> yes, i'm the last point given that we were budgeting 20 and now we are authorizing 21, we would still have the estimate of completion will have to include which is part of the program
reserve. >> give that a shot. >> and the completion stays the same and we set aside 117 million dollars in program reserves. 100 million that we were not going to touch. 17 million to deal with unknowns and knowns. and that comes out of the 17 million dollars. just for the completion of 2.146 is the 100 million dollars, and the low bids or low rfps that we have seen in the next. and earlier this year. so we have set aside, 15 million for the issues and the other issues that we are see the risk there and we wanted to budget for. >> okay. >> great. >> and 2146 should not change. >> good, i just wanted to first acknowledge that i know that this got delayed for a long time because of the lease issue. but from the time that got resolved to see a bid go out and
fewer than 60 days later, we are here ready to authorize approval and the fact that we had three bidders, which we are finding in this climate, and it is almost rare that we even get three bidders, the fact that i guess, kind of luckily, we got such a high, sve participation rate and that the bid, you know, given the delay understandable came in as far as i am concerned, more or less on budget, and that is the thing that it is the great work of the teams that we have taken those previous recommendations about how to make sure that we are an attractive owner to work for, to get the good bids, and to get this up so quickly. this is a good job on that. >> okay. >> i do want to ask given that we are looking at a march third of operations and the schedule shows substantial at end of july, which i get is only what is it 16 months from now? it was good to see that bid came in at the low end of the
duration range, and i am wondering if we think their opportunities to shrink that march for july window so that the transit and the other operators can start getting beneficial use of this sooner after opening than we are currently projecting. >> okay. i will we will be engaging with the contractor shortly, in fact i would like to acknowledge nick and his team that are in the back row here, and we will be engaging in to engage that kind of a discussion to see what can happen. >> since they are here, maybe they can convince me. 12 months. >> go you want to commit to 12 months? >> i heard a yes. >> yes. >> get that on the record. >> but i do want to thank if i could, dennis for arranging the a, plus, b because it worked as far as we were having and we could get the bids by having the contract and give us the number of bids verses our engineers
predicting the number of bids. the neighbors on the still, and perry, and you know, we worked on the bay bridge approach and they are very, very vocal and so we make sure that the extensive out reach happens to them as this project moves. >> as was noted sooner, we need the public out reach definitely. thank you. noechlt no members of the public want to comment, is there a motion? >> approval? >> second. >> the first and a second. director harper chl >> aye. >> riesskin. oi. >> gee e >> aye. >> nuru. >> aye and item ten is approved. we will call your next is em. item eleven, authorizing the executive director to execute an amendment to the professional services agreement with to accommodate increased program management/program controls services for an amount not to exceed $5,400,000. >> this is an item that kaz continued from last month, and
we have dennis is going to present it. and we have provided some more explanati explanation. >> good morning, directors dennis, and we took your comments from last month and we have really did revamp this staff report to try to incorporate them and try to tell the story in a loo light that hopefully we will be able to show here with the different graphics so that will help to tell the story a little bit for the pmpc, i want to start with this one that is a graphic that shows the very top line, the blue line, we have broken this out and this is the four years basically of the pmpc, from july of 2014, all the way through
july of 2018. that is depicted here. and that blue line is what was originally submitted by urs. that is a number that was approximately 37 million dollars. and in a very simple graph that you can see that. the numbers that we are talking about now are much lower than that original budget and it is graphically here. but, in mid 2016, we at that point we are still burning at exactly where we are projecting. there was no changes athe that point. but we did see things down the horizon. all spending was done actually a little bit below the line, up until that point. but we did see what was coming for ward. so when we identified where we had the budget, and we saw that the projections, the estimate was lalths bit higher, that is when we started raising, the item, and bid included in the june, 2016 budget with the 4.4,
million dollars to address this very issue, to try to get ahead of it to get the word out as much as possible. and so that, and but then at the end of 2017 numbers is important because as a reminder that is what we projected pmpc the services will have gone out to, what we knew in july of 2014 was, we had an earlier substantial completing, and a lot of items were unknown passed that point and so we felt that it was important not to include those, and why fund them if we didn't think that they were necessary at the time. and obviously with today's element, we know that we want to and we are requesting to take out the pmp services out to mid, 2018, so there are two elements that are part of this request. one of them is the part of the line that is above that star. and then there the part that is the next star that takes you for an extra six months. so that is various elements that are part of this request. and then it also shows you will
spent verses forecast in there, and it is tracking and have been tracking well. there is another graphic that we put together to try to tell the story of how spending has been going and how it has been on track. you look at the very first task order, the very first year, 7.5 million was the original task order written and it came in for that year, 7.2 million, and so we did come under that first year. you go to the second year, the task order number 13 shgs for the next 12 months it was up a little, and it was an uptick a little bit compared to the task order but the over all spending for the consider itself was still under what we are projecting. now bringing us more in line where we at in talking in this current task order, we have only to date, through, i should say through december of 2016, we would spend, 3.1 million, only at that point.
and we at the task order and was projected at the time to be 5.3 million, but now with some of the items that we have identified that are essential, along with any kind of credits that we have been taking on any other line items we project a spend of over 6.9 million on this, of a particular task order. and then when you, when you go to the next task order, we have identified additionally, 2.1 million we originally thought it was and now the need for 2.8 million and i will go into some of these drivers on the next slide. and then the task order 15, is a completely add because that is that time fra i am from january of 2018, to july of 2018. for 2.1 million dollars. and then the last item, shows too, is the phase two next steps. is also an unbudgeted, 1.3 million which is the prop k
request that we are familiar with. so if you go he to the far right totals, it shows that the original approved amount was 21.8 million, and we have spent to date, 17.2 million. and we identified the charges plus the phase two that gets us to the requested ask of 27.2 million dollars for this item. the item, and there are, there are multiple drivers that are part of this request, the numbers here which was as of noted last time, don't add up to the you know atz this is the additional scope. items not the 6 months, 2.1 million dollars, this is what we have identified as the 1.5 million dollars, and added scope for phase one work. that is the first item and the first 6 bullets are phase one, and the last bullet is phase two. and additional investigations
items such in with the bus ramp and bus storage required additional what we found is and what we have to do is more than what was originally budgeted. services and the additional security elements. and had a lot to do with value engineering. that the value engineering as a whole helped the program, but there was when you redoing the value engineering and the plans and it had to utilize security and safety. and the experts to go back and revised view, in the shore and design the criteria were met and another item that really added to the security was the transfer of the ecs and the em, and that was the physical security information, and the emergency communications, and mass notification systems, that were originally going to be under the web corp contract but it was better, we, it was moved under the pmp contract. and then the it, at 528,000 and
o& m revenue, and the master leasee and for the start up, none of those items and those two bullets were accounted for the original, 21, because this was back in july of 2014, they were not accounted for. and in the last item, the last bullet on this sheet, i identified the 460,000, it is a phase two item. and it has everything, and it is related to advancing the environmental document itself which is actually part of agenda item 13 right now. so, i hope that explains and actually answers the questions that were brought forth at the last board meeting. if you have any questions i could address them now. >> any questions from the directors? >> yes sfl >> this just comes off of
director reiskin is talking about the grab and phase two, and so are we saying i gather from this that unless the prop k money comes through, there won't be phase two work? or are with he just saying we are going to spend on it, as we want, whether it is prop k pays for it or not? >> we note in the staff report that it would be available funding. whether it is prop k or other. it could be utilized for this, the phase two item. >> well we have a bank account that is availableable funding. >> let me verify, we don't get the prop k, unless weapon fund other money, we will not be able to move and we will not be able to proceed in the. >> for the 1.1, million. we do have the money available right now that we are using to coordinate the study. we have little left. and that is justify the coordination of the study and the coordination of the cal tran
and the high speed rail, and we budgeted in the regional 2014, budget, about 150,000 for that effort. because it took longer than we thought it would. and there is much more coordination and we needed a little bit more money for that. >> and that is what is reflected in one of the driver foz that. >> all right. >> first of all this presentation was very helpful and it might be helpful to get these presentations with unless it was there with the staff report, and i didn't maybe i didn't scroll down. i am ready to support this item. just one question, when you said there was a security technology scope that was moved from the web corp to the pmc, and that accounted for some of the increase on the pmp was there an increase on the side. >> there was actually on the
pre-con element and there was a decrease and we will realize that as an opportunity. >> all right. thank you. >> any other questions directors? >> move. nechl second. >> first and a second and no members of the public wanting to comment on the item. director harper? >> oi. >> reiskin oi. >> gee. >> aye. >> nuru. >> aye. item seven is approved. call the next item. approving the recommended applicants to the transbay joint powers authority . >> it is not coming up. >> yeah, scott? >> good morning, directors, i think that our cac chair, bruce did a good job of describing the out comes of our recruitment process and very quakely as a reminder, we have 15 seats and, each seats is sdesignated for te stake holders with an request in
the transit center, and so we ensure that we have broad representation of all of the points on the committee. the members serve for the two year terms and the terms ever staggered so that half of the seats are up for renewal. and we had 7 seats up for renewal and we had one member that resigned mid term and so we had eight seats available for appointment. members are eligible serve up to 3 consecutive two year terms and so as bruce indicated. we have six current members of the cac that are reapply and we are recommending the reappointment and then we have the two new members that we are recommending. the staff report gave the details on the recruitment process but i am happy to answer the questions that you have about the process or the recommendation. >> i have one question. if i was read tg right it looked like one of the new proposed members lives in pretty far east and works in southern california. and --. >> he works in a regional office for a company that is based in
southern california. >> right. is the regional office anywhere close to the transit center? >> well he, it is in alameda so he is, he is being appointed to the environmental seat and so he works for the solar energy company he is actually here today. >> it just seems like it is not closely connected to the project. >> he lives in the service area. >> okay. >> thank you. other yez? >> members of the public? >> public comment? >> yeah. >> thank you, and very briefly, so, as you mentioned earlier, as in the request of the consideration, i think that you need to consider at one point collapsing those and the tjpac, as you move to a phase two.
and i would respectfully put it to you, there is much more relevant institutional knowledge, within the c, than the current tjpac as far as phase two is concerned. >> all right. thank you. >> first and second? >> on the citizen advisory. >> i would move approval of the recommendation. >> okay. >> second. >> first and second and, no other members of the public wanting to comment on the item, director harper. >> aye. >> reiskin, oi. >> gee aye. >> nuru. >> that is four aye and item 12 is approved and the next item is 13, supplemental environmental impact statement/environmental impact report update.. >> this item will be presented by john and megan murphy, rod is the lead person for the
environmental documents. and megan is the program manager for the contract. >> good morning, directors it is a pleasure to be here, i was going to start off by saying that i am not dennis to present to you. but mark explained that my name is rod, and i am with ae com and i started and have been involved with the project for phase two environmental documents. since it's inaccepting. we got started back in the send of 2012, and we have been in the project for the past four years. i would like to give an up date and in terms of the presentation of the bore members directors are able to see it; is that correct? ? >> and they have hard copies. >> excellent. >> our agenda is divided into four specific parts, the first is to talk about the process, and second is to give you an understanding and the appreciation of the refinements that comprised the project, and the third part is for identify m
of the key impacts that were identified in going through and preparing the draft environmental document, and because we are at the tail end of the environmental review process we want to share with you the major comments that were received on the document and some of the responses that we are drafting right now. i will be pr providing the information on the first and the second and the fourth item. and megan murphy, will be talking about agenda item two. >> so in terms of the environmental review process, this is a very similar process, with unthat you are very, very familiar with. and basically it follows, the california environmental quality act. and results in environmental impact report. i am sorry. >> what we have on this slide are basically the three distinct phases that comprise the environmental documentation, and the first row is essentially the commencement of the process and the scoping activities. and the second row comprises the
technical analysis that leads to a draft and environmental document that is issued for public review, and the third row shows the responses to those comments in the preparation of a final environmental document. >> and now what is different about this process is that first off it is a supply mental environmental document. and that means that we are basically tearing up the 2004, that was completed for the transbay program, and comparing for the document what we are looking no is the extent to which the proposed project, that megan will be describing results in new significant impacts or the impacts that are more severe than what we are presented in the 2004, environmental document, and the supply mental document, the second thing is that even though we have a single environmental review process, there are two different processes and two different environmental legislations that
have been integrated. on one hand, we have the california invier mental contract, and on the other hand we with the policy act because there is a federal action to be taken. at the conclusion of row three, what we have is an action that is going to be taken by the federal lead agency. the federal transit administration and they will issue a record of decision. the comparable -- it is on the tjpa side and the local side for sequa and it will first go ahead and issue the responses to the public comments. and post it on the public website so that it is available for everyone to see. and then, there will be a set of actions that will be requested of the tjpa board at a point in the future. those actions are illustrated on this next slide, basically they are going to consist of certifying the final document, adopting the findings, and adopting the mitigation and monitoring program, and then, making a determination of the
decision about the project itself. what i wanted to share before turning the program over to megan is that on this long journey, there are a number of other participants that have been actively engaged in this process, what we have listed here are the par participating agencies which is the federal term for those public agencies that have an interest in the project and those agencies that are the most responsible for insuring the compliance with the california environmental quality act and the act are the lead agencies. so for sequa, the tjpa is the local lead agency for the federal process, nepa and it is the federal transit administration. and because of the federal rail road, administration interest in the project. and their expertise in this area. they are considered a cooperating agency. now in addition to these particular agency ez, there is also a host of other participating agencies other agencies with interest in the project and there are three groups in particular, one is city legalitied agency and so
the city planning and ocii and there are various transit operators considering the cal train and the other authority and the operators who will be benefiting and using the transit center and there are other federal agents that degree to participate as part of the environmental review process. and what i wanted to note on this particular slide is that each of these agencies was offered an opportunity and was conducted early on and they were offered the opportunity to review the administrative draft documents before it was issued as a public review document and so with that, we will go over the highlights of the project itself. megan? >> good morning, directors, as the executive director noted i'm megan and i am the project manager for the phase two on the program management team, and i will be celebrating 9 years on the program this year, i started as the dtx project engineer, and prior to that, i worked on the retrofit of the transbay two and the design work on the srit, and
the stations in downtown san jose. >> and so i have been tasked with sharing for you the elements that are in the ier, and i know that you are intimately acquainted with all of the elements of the program itself. and on this diagram, you will see the elements that are bubbles in pink and yellow. elements have been added and these elements are new and the elements in yellow are modified as part of it and all of the other elements were cleared in 2004. more about the refinement and we are going to go on the details of these slides, and we are going to whip through them >> taxi staging along the edge of the transit center itself. and the bart muni underground,
and the use of the bicycle and the vehicle controlled vehicle ramp. and the widened throat structure and the rock that provide the temporary construction and support for the tunnel portion. parking at the ac transit bus storage facility. the fourth underground station realignment, and the tunnel stub box which will connect in to the future alignment of the pennsylvania alignment for the rib study should that be selected and additional track wshg on the portion of the alignment. >> we will start at the north and the portions of the alignment. first we have the bart muni connector which was in vision in 2004, however we are settlementing an alignment that goes up beel street, and it is a straight alignment which has the benefit of security. and which we don't have the curves or bends. and also, it is straight so it is shorter. and that has cost benefits.
the next refinement, and this is because of the high speed authority. and it will be the plats form, which means for the double link trains which are 400 meters long, and this allows the full compliance with adc and back in 2004, we envisioned the platforms and this does not allow for the trains to fully be compliant with ada because of the gap forms between the platform edge and the vehicle at the door level. the train box extension goes from beel street to main street, and that will impact the podium structure at 201 mission, for those of you who have been to the office, and djpa office building, and the structure is a 3 to 4, level office building, and it has the loading dock and the garbage facilities for the
building. and on top of this newly acquired parcel, the tjpa vision is putting an intercity bus facility that will houls the long distance bus carriers like the grey hound, at the will be on the bus deck, however as the rider ship grows there will be a new place for them to put above the train box extension in the intercity, facility that will allow for more transit on the bus deck level. >> the next refinement on this is the taxi staging which is just along the edge of the transit center itself. >> next is the wide structure and you will see in gray, the original structure. well back in 2004, the high speed rail authority did not have requirements. they were in their infancy, and so subrequest ent to that they have come up with one of those, and it is a curved or a radius.
but they would like to have come in to any facility. so, the 900 foot radius that you see on this diagram, and the outer dash line, is the criteria for the high speed rail for their radius. we worked with high speed rail authority and proposed a design various request that will allow the criteria that will allow it to be reduced to 650 feet, this is the criteria, and this is the rady us that has the least right-of-way of the criteria and radius that we studied. this new alignment of this structure impacts two additional structures. one is at 589 howard and the others at 235 second street, these two structures we are looking forward to studying the opportunities to under pin during when we receive the money from sfcta that is part of the scope. we are currently optimistic that we will be aible to under pin
those structures to minimize the impacts to them. additionally we were able to save the historic structure that was previously slated for demolition, that is at 171 second street, and shown in yellow on this diagram. next is the emergency ventilation and these will be used for the emergency ventilation and emergency egress, and there will be one at east end of the transit center and one at each end of the fourth and townsend station and one that is known on block 12 which is currently owned by the tjpa and it is also parcel request, and i am not sure which one you are familiar with. and that is at second and harrison. and the other structure is at third and townsend street. with he have previously envisioned having it at the mcdonald sight however as you are aware, that is now currently becoming a 12 story hotel. and so the fta, requested that in the final document, we
propose our alternative location, which is on the north side of that intersection, as the proposed location for this ventilation structure. also, as part of our allocation request, we will be looking at opportunities to reduce the surface impacts on townsend street and that includes that ventilation structure at third and townsend. the next refinement is the realignment of the fourth and townsend, underground station, this was at the request of the city, as part of the future endeavor to build out these fourth and king surface rail yard stations, they were concerned by the city that having an underground station, located skewed into the surface station, would limit the future development potential. and so there was a request by the city, for the tjpa to relocate the station fully into the public right-of-way, so that is what this refinement does.
>> in this square you will see not only the additional track work on the southern portion of the alignment but the train, excuse me the tunnel subbox which will allow for that future underground connection should the pennsylvania alignment be selected. also, we have proposed additional track work on the southern portion of the alignment, one is a maintenance of the track which is where cal train will store the equipment they need to actually maintain the track itself, and if were not for the vehicle maintenance and it is actually for the track work maintenance and the second is a turn backtrack. >> this allows the cal train to move the trains from the fourth and king surface station, into the transit center, without backing out on to the main line.
they advised us that we need this track work for the operation. i will hand it back over to rod. >> thanks, megan. >> so, jump back into the environmental draft document as you know the documents will exam as men as 20 different resource topics from air quality to noise to the land use and etc., etc. >> what we are presenting on this particular slide are those five resource areas for which the analysis showed that the pro-he posed project as described by megan would result in a new significant impact or an impact that was more severe than what was reported in the 2004, transbay program environmental document? >> the topics range from transportation to land use to water resources, and noise and vibration sxr magnetic interference and the type of impact that is associated with
each of these different topics or resources, is identified in the second column. so i won't go into the details, but for the water resources it was related to the flood had arz. for the transportation as related to the circulation. around 16th street and you can see that the reason for this this particular impacts just to the right, and it is primarily the turn backtrack that is generating the circulation affected. for the water resources, the hazard issues and impacts that were identified, it is global climate change that is producing the impact that was identified and for noise and vibration, any of the project component pz that might be constructed during the nighttime, could disturb and annoy the nearby residents and sensitive re-septemb sensitive. >> and two things that i wanted to point out on this particular slide, it seems remarkable that for a project of this scale there are only five particular
areas or resources where there might be a significant impact. >> and that is largely because of two reasons, the first is that the project refinement that they described are fairly localize and they are refinements to a much larger program. the necked thing and because we are tearing off the previous document, all of the mitigation measures that are identified in that documents and recommended and adopt and approved, and covered and cut and cover and hifrt i can rye sources things like they are part of this proposed project and therefore, reduce the projects that might otherwise occur. >> in looking at the final column on the slide on the far right, there are two areas where we have identified that the impacts could not be mitigated to less than significant. in other words, all of these other topics have mitigation measures that will reduce the impact less than significant. the ones that will not be
reduced to that level include sea level rise impacts, and the flood hazards associated with the global climate change, we are not in a position alone to go ahead and implement the measures that are going to protect the facility and then it is not an impact of the facility itself, it is the environment on the facilities and second as i mentioned earlier, construction related noise that will occur at night, it has developed a lot of really good measures that have been implemented during phase one and they are likely to be disturbances that occur during the nighttime meeting hours. >> and the next slide, knows that while we talk about adverse impacts, significant impacts, associated with the environmental documents we just want to be mindful and aware that there is a good reason that we are pursuing this project and so we want to acknowledge and it allows us to acknowledge the effects associated with the project. and the first one being that this does serve as the last mile
connection and provides cal train service from the current station to the new transit center. and so doing, what it allows is that some of the passengers that would now have to alight and either walk or transfer to their existing ex-connection to get to the final destinations can continue on and ride all the way to the transit center, as a result some of the pedestrian volumes that have been projected to be extremely significant and substantial in that vicinity things like the central soma and the documents and the cal train, and all point to a high volume of pedestrian movements. and impacts in this area. the dtx project, and the ability to go all the way for that last mile, allows some of the volumes to be reduced because they will continue to ride on to the transit center. the ability of cal train and high speed rail to continue all the way to the transit center, allows the project both of those
projects to realize the reductions in the vehicle miles traveled. the reduction in the greenhouse gas emission and to realize the reductions in the air emissions that have been forecast and those environmental documents and then finally as megan pointed out earlier, the shift in the widened structure allows one of the buildings that contributes to the historic district to be preserved as as opposed to be demolished. >> upon release of the draft environmental document, we received comments from eight different public agencies as well as eight private parties individuals and organizations. and of the 140 or so comments that have been received, we are in the process of completing and drafting our responses to all of those individual comments. and those will be included in the final environmental document. what i would want to wrap up with, is to give you an overview
to some of the ma i jor comments that have been received and with he have tagged these a major comments, because they were raised by a lot of commenters and they represent the areas of controversy and they are areas that are particular interest at a lead agency and yourselves and fta. so the first item has to do with the amount of recognition acknowledgment and the draft environmental document, regarding some of the city planning efforts in the mission bay area. in response what is the environmental document that has done is to recognize all of those different projects to start listed on the slide and to include and incorporate the analysis as appropriate to better provide a context for the impacts around the turn backtrack along the 16th street corridor and how that may or may not effect muni or may not effect the emergency access, so that information is now incorporated in the document in the final. >> the second major comment that i wanted to bring up is the
concerns about cut and cover. construction. and the impacts associated with it. and general, the response refers back to the 2004, environmental document, where the cut and cover, and some extend along second street was already evaluate and there were mitigation measures identified for the pedestrian safety, or the protection of the adjacent buildings of air and noise emissions and all of those things were already mitigated as part of the construction of the impacts and those were all included as part of the proposed project. the other thing that i would note is that the environmental document is required to look at the most plausible worse case scenario. >> one of the points that you
heard from the presentation is that there are going to be opportunities during the next phase of the design to limit the amount of impacts associated with this construction method. >> the third major present that we received had to do with td the turn backtrack and how that will effect the movement along 16th street. and the things that i would like to point out here is that yes, it is true. when the gates are lowered to allow cal train to shuttle back and forth between the cal train rail yard and the new transit center there is going to be intervene ans and there is going to be circulation and delays, associated for the transit for the automobiles for the emergency vehicles and for the best pedestrian and bicyclists and however, it is important to understand that cal train has committed to operating that turn backtrack only during the off peak hours. and so that there is no
intention to shuttle trains back and forth to get to the transit center, neither during the am peak hour or during the pm peak hour when the automobile traffic is the heaviest and the most n congestion and delays are anticipated. >> could i ask you a question on that? could you explain specifically what hours those are? and to what extent that commitment is locked into the environment? >> yeah, i have asked the cal train to come up and help but we do have included in the environmental document, a much better schedule of when the cal train will operate. the use of a turn backtrack. and there is a ramp a period that is in the early morning that starts as early as maybe, four or five, and it will go as late as a little bit after seven, but the idea is to have the trains ready at the transit center for the early morning commute runs, and in the evening commute runs. >> yes. >> hi, stacey, planning for cal train, electric identification
project. so we, just a little bit of history, so we on the kind of reasonable worse case scenario, we had to seem to know the midnight or midday storage as part of the draft document and that looked at about 44 times that we would use the turn backtrack during the day. over the course of a weekday. and we heard that that was not acceptable, and so what we did is took a look to see what we could do to reduce that. and so we looked at ways of having storage over night. and during the midday. and what that ended up in was a reduction of 24 times, and the hours that we would limit to is 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., sorry, 5:00 a.m. to 10 a.m., and four to eight that we would not use the turn backtrack. >> thank you. >> thank you very much stays y >> what that means tho you and we need to put this in context, so there is no travel across the turn backtrack in the peak hour. it does not mean that there is
not going to be delays during the off spaek hours. so over the course of a full day with the 24 crossings that stacey just described there will be a total delay of 28 minutes over the course of the entire day. and with each crossing, we are estimating that the gate down time, and the delays that might be experienced by any of the travelers along the 16th street corridor would be about 70 seconds. and the 70 seconds, in terms of comparable terms will be similar to waiting at a signalled intersection and so over the course of the entire day, 28 minutes of delay, we are not envisioning would be a substantial impact to the transit and the ped bicycle operations. and however, we do realize that for the emergency response, ambulances and emergency transports, that kind of travel time is much, much more urgent and critical. so, what we wanted to show was that currently the per veiling
route that is used by the ambulances to get to the new ucsf medical facilities will use, 16th street which i just highlighted and the vehicles will then continue along owens and then mariposa into the u.s., usfc medical facility. and this is at grade crossing and that is where that could occur with the gates being down. what we have examined is the opportunity for those emergency responders to consider alternate routes. and whether those might be available and accessible. and what we have highlighted on the slide is that there are alternate routes. and that instead of having to use the at grade crossing and being possibly delayed at 16th street, they could go south along mississippi, and then east along mariposa and the nice thing about that particular alternate route is that it is a grade separated and will not
experience the kind of delays that will occur at 16th street. >> i am moving on to the next major comment, there were concerns about the amount of circulation that might be associated with the inner city bus facility, and the first thing that iptded to point out is that there is the bus plaza and a little bit of confusion of the bus plaza. itself it was approved and cleared in the 2004, environmental document. and it is already under construction as part of the phase one transit center and so the impacts related to that would have already been addressed and mid gated as part of the document. what was raised is that to what ex-at the present time might the inner city, bus fa silfy contribute to the additional congestion or delays. the number of trips associated with the bus are relatively minor i should say chl it is not really adding a substantial amount of new bus traffic on to
the street system particularly along main and beel street, one of the reasons why, the way that the bus facility has been designed and it is hard to get orientation from this slide, but the north is down to left and beel street is a street closest to us along the bottom of the slide. and the circulation for the inner city bus facility has the buses coming up main street, coming through the inner city, and then turning down to go back out along beel street. and as a result, if any buses are waiting to get on to beel street to go south, the idea that they would interfere with the traffic flow, will not occur because the buses will wait and cue up in the inner facility bus itself and not resulting in the congestion on the local streets. the second concern that was raised is that if if is the additional concerns of the nearby driveways, and well the beel street at that particular location is relatively wide and the other driveways that might
conflict are offset. and so there is opportunities for those other traffic streams and for the inner city bus facility buses to be able to move in and out without that kind of congestion. >> finally, there were a number of questions that were raised about why can't there be other alternative alignments considered? going into the wide and throat structure,s megan as already explained, we are already at a sweet spot right now. if you were to tighten up the curves, and to make it smaller, you would end up having operational difficulties for the trains, and their ability to enter into the train center itself. wheel squeal will be a possible i am fact, if we were to widen and softn the curve a little bit, what the slide shows and what the curve shows is that there would be a lot more facilities and buildings and properties on the west side of
second street that will be affected. >> so in conclusion what we have learned from releasing the public review draft which was out for 60 days, digesting all the comments, and developing the responses is that there are no significant changes to the conclusions that were presented in the draft environmental document. there are no substantial new analysis or alternatives that need to be considered. in the environmental document. and there are no new mitigation measures that are needed as a result of the analysis that has been performed and some of the additional consideration and clarifications that have been added during the response to comments. so where do we go from here? >> a couple of steps. first, we need fta to go ahead and review the final environmental document, mark has already provided some wonderful news from the fta that they are not going to be providing additional comments and maybe they will seek clarification but
they are in a position and prepared and ready to issue the record of decision, which is the federal action. and the second is that tjpa directors have encouraged all of us to make sure that we are sulting with the city planners and that is something that we need to wrap up, and there are a few details and we are sharing that with them. >> third, as we complete the responses and we get approval from the fta and we are work tg out with the planning department and we will go ahead and issue the responses as required by the state law, ten days in advance, at least, of any board hearing. >> and those responses in the final document will be posted on the tjpa website and, then, it is back to you. and it is back to the tjpa board for actions to consider the certification of the final environmental document, the adoption of the mitigation measures, and the adoption of the findings and to make a decision about the project itself. if the project does move forward, there is approval then
sort of the equivalent of the fta record of decision will be the issuance of the notice of determination by tjpa and that will be posted with the county clerk. >> that concludes our presentation. sorry that went on long, but it was a great opportunity to provide you with an up date and i appreciate that. >> directors have questions? >> just sort of a comment, yeah, i mean that i, the response is no changes is required to the conclusion presented. i mean that is ever, eir that pretty much that i have been involved with, this one in particular, if you concluding that there is no, there is nothing that is necessary because of comment, and particularly with that comment involved the city, where the city is putting that in, as i said before, i want to listen to the city on this. and so you are going to have to come in here with, and first of all, the ten days is not enough to allow them to do it because when we come in and we hear and stand in front of us, i am going to be listening, so you are
going to have to support your no changes, and a lot of those things pretty well. yes, with he appreciate that fully, the ten days is a minimum, and that is established by the state requirements, and if we can get the responses completed sooner, we obviously will, we will make that available, and part of the reasons that we are in the consultations and the discussions with the city light now, is because they have elaborated on some of the concerns and we want to make sthur that we understand those concerns and we are addressing those concerns because as we all know, with he have to move box step with the city and moving both with this project and with the study. and so it, it really probably does not make sense and it is me speaking and speculating for us to move forward with the city planning department is not along with us. >> i agree. >> so i would first concur with the director harper and i would just again, i would rather have
privately but publicly very strongly urge that the final document not get published and be bro ut to consideration to this body until there is that level of concur ans and comfort from the city. i share the concerns that were articulated by the cac chair and particularly with regard to the cut and cover construction. and the 16th street crossing. and i do understand that the environmental document is really just articulating the worse case possible impacts. but, i do have concern on the early slide in terms of the two approval paths, what this board the action that this board is going to be asked to take is not just certifying the document, basically saying that the document has adequately evaluated the impacts, but also, approving the project. and i can tell you right now, based on my understanding of a
cut and cover, approach, and what we heard about 16th street, i would not be supportive of approve thanksgiving pring this. and appoint on the 16th street crossing that the idea of focusing just on commuter peak times is inadequate just from the muni service alone let allow the other possible uses of the 16th street and i understand some transit services have very much the concentration of their rider ship in the peak, and that is not the case for muni on many lines and i assume that this one would be one of them and more than half is traveling outside of the peak and with the existence of the hospital, ucsf hospital, and the warriors and the facility, and we will have significant off peak travel. so the idea that there will be that level of train traffic at the surface at all, is concerning. but during the daytime, when we
are charged with moving people and support of all of the development on the eastern side of san francisco, i don't think that that will be acceptable. so it does, i guess just one other comment, i don't know to what extent there was out reach done by folks who would be impacted by the construction. i'm totally with you on the benefit side, and we need to keep in mind the big picture of the benefits that this project and whatever form it finally ends up in will bring, and i am 100 percent supportive of getting the trains of the transit center and i don't think that it will be worth building phase one if we are not going to get phase two, but i'm concerned that the folks particularly along townsend street and mission ba i and on second street, are not aware of this process. and this project. and i'm concerned that their concerns probably are not, i don't know exactly who the
private folks who send in comments are, but my guess is that there is a lot of businesses and property owners, along that or those and in those three areas, at least, that are not clued in to what is happening here. i think that this is the first time that we have really had a discussion about the environmental process, in this public body. that probably does not have the highest kneel son ratings in a long time. but i am not sure how much this is on the people's radar. but then, the bigger question to me is what is the right environmental strategy given that we do have more than one planning process for this particular project. as we discussed earlier. we are anticipating and we heard, 4 to 6 months that we may get a recommendation that hopefully will be a con sen sho con ken shoes among the region for something that might be different than this. and so that then raises the
question does it make sense for the tjpa to act now on this document, knowing that we may well be pursuing a different alignment, and we may know that and relatively short order. or would it make sense to approve this and go to another supply mental or a different environmental process? i don't know what the answer is to that, but i think that the board will benefit before considering approval of this, supply mental, and analysis of the different ways, the different environmental strategies and it does get back to again, if part of our certifying the eiscir and the supply mental, and includes approving the project, i would not be comfortable doing that at least the way that it is now, in you found that despite the comments, essentially it is all good and no change is necessary as director harper indicated, then i think that that will be putting at least some smemz
members of the board in a difficult decision of having to reject this and so i think that the discussion of how a potential different alignment comes together with the over all approval of the project and the desire of everybody to keep phase two moving i think that that discussion will be helpful for the board before we are faced with the consideration of approving this. >> director, i want to show you that before we bring this item back to the board that we will have the completed consultation with the planning department and we have reached con consensus on what is the next steps, and whether it is the approval or waiting for the results of the rib or waiting for the results and then taking action and so that will be done in consultation with the planning department. >> thank you. >> if i may, through the share, i just wanted to offer two
observations. the first is that we are fully aware that the traffic patterns and the traffic flow in the kirk i lags along 16th street, corridor extends beyond the amp, period and that was part of the reasons for our ongoing consultationwise the city planning staff. it is to better understand how it might effect the better modes of transportation, whether the muni and or bicyclesists or automobile, travelers, and so that is being taken into account as for the developing this revised response, or this updated response. and the second thing in terms of the public out reach, we did fairly closely follow the city's procedures, in terms of their radii for announcing and informing neighboring residents and businesses and etc., of the availability of the draft environmental document. and so we did do, i think a mailing of over, 4,800 something
mailers to all residents and mar cell and property owners in the 300 foot radius of any of the proposed radius. >> and i didn't mean to suggest that i was assuming that the required level of out reach or even suggested level of out reach was not done, i am sure that it was. >> that said, i mean that we have all gotten these notices in the mail, and most of the folks don't pay a lot of attention, but this project at least at the outer bounds of what the environmental document clears, but have very dsignificant impat on the number of buildings and their occupant foz many years. and i just, i'm not convinced that all of the folks who would be impacted are dialed into that despite the good efforts that they have been made in terms of notification. >> thank you, much appreciated. >> director thank you. >> and i am goaling ing to try follow up, on the comments,
since my office is in thard. why the property owners may sh on noise we are relying on them down and it does not work very well. following the legal requirements but getting the general public the better awareness, we have to figure that out, as far as i am concerned this should have been done in 2011. >> how to go beyond the property owners or the residents or he is deny ants and i think that is the miss, and the general public who is walking or biking in the area. >> i share, with it, and i am
used to certifying an environmental document, separate from approving a project. and so on the slide three, you have a bullet that says approved by the project and that is i think, what is little unnerving is that you know, i'm comfortable approving environmental document, and then approving a project as something separate and so i don't know if that was intentional or accidental or i don't know what the process is. the way that we looked at it is that we will follow what has been done in 2004, and i believe that the resolution that was put before the board at that time but don't hold me to it is that all of those actions were put into a separate resolution, but there was a sequence that had to be completed before they could make the decision on the approval of the project. in this particular insurance stance, i don't know that there is any hesitancy, if needed and if doo he sierd by the board to
take the actions and the resolution associated with the certification of the environmental document and then separately, the approval of the projector the discussion of the project. and i think that that might be something better suited for the organization, because there is so many other dynamics, and i'm supportive of clearing an environmental route and given all of the dynamics and that this is in the stoo he and county of san francisco and there are the other issues and alternatives that need to come before, and having an environmental document approved and going against something else in comparing will be beneficial rather than leaving in in limbo, otherwise, this phase two will never be moving forward anywhere, and i don't need to be at this meeting because the train will never get here. so i think finding the right path forward, and being sensitive to the city's needs are and the tension that is at
play. >> i would urge the planning department and the executive director mark and their team to get together and i mean there are so many moving pieces. when this project started in 04, those conditions have changed dramatically. we have heard on the cac, you know, some of these concerns that are not even possible any more, i think. and certain parts and with the plans, that they have put forth and so, the sooner, that you can get together, with the planning department, work on the alignment and tell us you know, what options they are and what is the best way to get the trains which i think will make it for everybody. and as opposed to having these two processes going on. and where we are today. >> and probably should have happened a little earlier than today. >> and we have started our discussions and we have had a couple of meetings already on the environmental document in the rb and we will continue the
discussion with the idea that we are much more involved. and suggests by director reiskin that at some point of time when the effort comes. >> and the important cost also, because as we start to look at different alignments and benefit and the costs and you know, for your -- you know, we could bring the train to the station. >> absolutely. well directors i want to thank you for your input because this was a very important item and it gives us good clarification of how we should be proceeding. >> thank you. >> and we do have two members of the p you believe that want to address you on it. with he have labrun and jim patrick. >> patrick and company, i tried to get a copy of this environmental impact report, i am sort of a paper guy, you know that i am in the papter business, they wanted 500 and something dollars for this report. we are talking about billions of
dollars here. it seems to me that we should fund some of this to get the information out on the public. it is on the internet. number two, this is golelg gook at the highest level, and i never seen such crazy stuff, this organization, and this organizati organization. this is it not good government, this an outsider looking in, and i am glad that i don't run my business like this. number three, i thought that you would approve this report, i projecting one of the things that will be in this report and this is my prediction, are we on the record? >> roland has come up with a great alignment thought that solves a lot of problems. i suggest that in this report, it will say that this alignment is not part of the scope and therefore we will not pay any attention to it. and that will be the analysis that the report will produce. that will be a tragedy. that should be evaluated.
why are we doing these things? i just don't know. sometimes we shoot ourselves in the foolt. i would love to get a paper copy of this report, once against, the $500 and this is over and beyond the top. and so, i decided that i would wait. i didn't buy it. >> thank you so. i was not here last month, i was very surprised when the directors say that there was just one letter from the planning department but i am glad that we found the other one in 15, and one of thechl was mine and i believe that you received copies of it shortly afterwards. but the first thing that i would like you to talk about is this alignment, and earlier with he discussed. and this alignment is fatally flawed for the very simple reasons that you cannot possibly construct that alignment. because, those are too sharp, and that is the end of that discussion. and so, if you on the alignment
which was on the third street and there are issues with that. you can actually all the way up to the station, and you still have this massive station in second street, and then, since you are burning essentially a block to a block and a half of the existing box, and you are forced to have the extension box, which is another 400 million, and by the way, you are losing a full length platform in the process and, so five years ago, i came up with a different -- and i just going to work you very quickly now, and back and then explain to you what it results, and essentially, starts around skchlt ezar and all of that comes out and basically goes up by rail and it repurposes the existing abandoned tunnel. so next to the cal train, and then it is a 22nd street and then is starts boring by the time that you hit, 16th street
you are 16 feet underneath, and then it lines up the 7th street on the station that is there between 7,000 and then you start 7th street and start curving, and roughly alines up with the howard and then it approaches the transbay transit center directly at that way, the first thing that it did is eliminates the station and for your left is between -- and it is also completely eliminates the box extension, because you are able to now move all of the platform one block to the second street. in also solves that there is no sequence reminding other than a couple of cross overs but we don't have time to drive on that. yes, if actually moves the station closer to ucsf, which i think that is better than the townsend location.
those turn back tracks i got. okay? that was the end, and i can't believe that nobody ever comes and confusing the terminal once it is full length you can actually store 6, 16, cal train trains in there. sorry 12. and the last thing that it does is it actually allows to you get there in one minute which is important because there are so young men that are able to get from there to the transbay in 30 minutes or less. thank you. >> that concludes the members of the public this time you are schedule to go into closed session, we do have a number of the public that wants to address you on the item listed, that is jim patrick. >> sorry. not sorry, i am happy to be here, i am happy to be here, jim patrick, and relative to the closed session i have read about what is going on with this thing, it seems to me that this is not going well fl an outsider looking in.
my kind of recommendation since we have moved to the opening of this terminal to march that is the way that i read the tea leaves is that we go back and say this bid is just no good, forget it, and we are going to reright the spe identifications and rebid this whole thing having learned what some of the problems are. going into the closed session? you can take that under consideration. thank you. >> thank you. >> all right. >> that does conclude the members of the public that wanted to address you on the items listed and we can go ahead and clear the room. >> okay. >> the tgpa board directors meeting is now back in open session, and the council will announce on the report of closed session. >> item 16, conference for the legal council, regarding existing let gages litigation, there is no action to report. on the item 17, con frons with the real property, negotiators
for being here thank you and to all of the departments the growing number of departments under the zoning administrator's office and say to all of you and staff thank you for being loyal to our zoning administrator and thank you for working hard and thank you for all your years of service i thinks if my talks with zoning administrator kelly and i, we know that these are not jobs we can do on our own at the depend on great public servants and i'll say this when i was zoning administrator and i believe that naomi building this today, we have the best downstairs if all the world thank you. >> (clapping.) >>